Democrats Outraged Over Fox Recess Appointment

Senate Democrats are livid over what they view as President Bush's illegal maneuver to bypass the Senate confirmation process and appoint controversial nominee Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium while Congress is away on recess.

Democrats find the recess appointment -- a common maneuver by presidents whose nominees stand little chance of getting through the standard confirmation process -- particularly egregious since Fox's nomination wasn't even pending. The White House withdrew the nomination last week, anticipating it didn't have enough votes for approval.

When it comes to Fox, Democrats see red. A wealthy businessman and mega GOP donor, Fox gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign that smeared Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) Vietnam record and helped doom his 2004 presidential quest. Kerry led the fight to quash Fox's nomination, though he never got the chance to declare victory after Bush withdrew the nomination.

To fight the Fox appointment, Democrats are questioning the Bush administration's plan to have Fox serve in a voluntary capacity -- receiving no pay for his duties as ambassador. This is an important legal technicality, as federal law prohibits "payment of services" for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it.

So as long as Fox -- a multi-millionaire -- agreed not to sue the Bush administration later for not paying him, the White House would be comfortable with giving him an unpaid, "voluntary service" recess appointment as ambassador to Belgium.

But here's the rub that makes Democrats view Bush's recess appointment of Fox as a major-league no-no: Federal law prohibits "voluntary service" in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. That's how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress, interprets the law.

In other words, according to senior Democratic Senate aides, the salary is a "statutory entitlement" and cannot be waived. While Fox would not be receiving a salary, he would still be entitled to live in government-owned housing and receive other benefits due any ambassador.

"How to reconcile this clear conflict between the pay restriction, which says that Fox cannot be paid, with the voluntary services provision, which says that the State Department cannot accept voluntary services from Fox?" queried one senior Democratic aide who asked for anonymity to speak frankly about the matter.

"That is the $64,000 question," he added.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was less than an hour from sitting down to vote on Fox's nomination when the White House pulled it last week. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was unavailable for comment. He was traveling home this evening from Iowa, where he was campaigning for president.

Kerry, however, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, had this to say: "It's sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate."

"This nomination was withdrawn because the administration realized it would lose in the Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," Kerry said.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), another member of the Foreign Relations Committee -- one of three '08 presidential contenders on the panel -- made it clear the White House declared war through its recess appointment.

"It is outrageous that the president has sought to stealthily appoint Sam Fox to the position of ambassador to Belgium when the president formally requested that the Fox nomination be withdrawn from the Senate because it was facing certain defeat in the Foreign Relations Committee last week," Dodd said. "I seriously question the legality of the President's use of the recess appointment authority in this instance."

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore described Fox as a "respected business leader who has tremendous international experience and passion for public service. The president made this decision based on Mr. Fox's impressive leadership credentials."

The recess appointment is scheduled to last through the end of Bush's term in office. Unless, of course, Senate Democrats find a way to deep six it.

Considering how the White House withdrew Fox's nomination last week, it almost seems like King George didn't calm down after yesterday's press conference and decide to spite Congress even further. He's like a small child who throws a fit when he can't get his way.

I will remember this the so called party of god in the next election. I hope that eveyone else remembers this 20 Reps are up for re-election next year and I will make sure I do not vote for one of them.

Bush obviously does not care one whit that really angering Democrats is not the best way to get them to stop investigating every nook and cranny of his corrupt government. Perhaps rightly he feels he has nothing left to lose. . . since every major policy of his has been an utter failure [Iraq], a flop [Social Security], or looks more and more unconstitutional and unAmerican every day [NSA wiretaps, Patriot Act, torture, Guantanamo, the list goes on and on]. This is simply another example in a long list of reasons why Bush 43 will easily go down as the worst presidency this country has ever seen.

Ah, the great Uniter once again shows his true colors. "You want to see how much of a spoiled child I am? Watch me cheat without even trying to hide it!' Barbara, for crying out loud, discipline your kid!

It is time to call our Congress Critters. They need to impeach Fox and all other recess appointments that Bush makes from here on out. Not only will that remove them from the office they were appointed to without consent of the Senate, it will prevent them from ever holding a government position again. Bush will find it difficult to find people that are willing to risk permanently being unable to hold any public office.

What's really sad is the Dems want to punish people for exercising their right to speak via campaign contributions. Since when is a campaign contribution a disqualifier for office? I guess civil rights are only for the Dems and the terrorists, right Sen. Leahy?

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Note the line "...vacancies that happen during a recess..."

There is no way that the Framers intended that the President can just wait until the Senate left for recess and then appoint anyone he wants to. What would keep him from withholding nominees altogether until a recess?

Fox's appointment is not what was intended by Article II, Section 2. It was meant as an emergency appointment for a vacancy that occurred during a recess. If the Senate was still in session when the vacancy occurred, and it was important enough to require delaying their recess, they would delay the recess and fill the vacancy. If the appointment can wait until they are back in session, then it can wait. This is the Senate's authority.

"Outstanding. It's about time President Bush got some backbone and stood up to the Democrats and the mainstream media. Fox wil make an excellent ambassador ... and he was right about John Kerry, too."

It's comments like this that makes the Republican party look like a bunch of spoiled brats and cynical 'have mores', who will go to any length to spite their opponents. Like Fox and his swift-boaters, they constantly find bitter enjoyment in ridiculing and taunting their adversaries by any possible means, fair or foul.

Yes, Bush has a stiff backbone of a dead skeleton - unable to bend under any circumstances, while being maliciously petulant and stubbornly fixated on almost all domestic and foreign policy issues. In the end, he will reap what he has sown - a sorry legacy built upon graft, corruption and incompetence, and a mountain of hateful recriminations that will follow and haunt him for the rest of his life

He spits in the face of a coequal branch of this government. He has gone off into the brush of his ranch mumbling about Pelosi-s thumbing of her nose meddling in foreign policy. Trying to figure out a way to get rid of him short of murder.
Is Goodling too young to be ambassador to Chad? Its a tough job being President these days. All The Decisions that have to be made. All the pardons that have to be made. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions

I get really tired with the unnecessary use of anonymous quotes. Why on earth could it possibly have been necessary to use an anonymous Democratic aide to say "How to reconcile this clear conflict between the pay restriction, which says that Fox cannot be paid, with the voluntary services provision, which says that the State Department cannot accept voluntary services from Fox?"

That's pure laziness on the part of the reporter and it's part of the reason why the inside-the-beltway media has lost its credibility.

No matter what you tired republicans say, it's still going to be great in 2008 -- cause you guys are going to have your asses handed to you. What a mess you conservatives have made in the last six years -- just keep it up.

This recess appointment flies in the face of Congress and payback would be for Congress on UNITE at overide the threaten veto of the Iraq budget. August 2008 as mandatory cut off for the war is not a bad idea...in a way it would save dumb azz Bush from himself. My prayer is for the miracle of the veto overide to show Bush how our DEMOCRACY works. The appointment of Fox is a blatant IOU being filled at the taxpayers expense. This horrible president is truly a beast in the worst sense of the word and must be stopped.

As an ambassador to BELGIUM (!) there's not much harm (or good) that Fox can do there. If his ego is such that he needs to strut around for the rest of his life saying, 'I was the ambassador to Belgium', let the pathetic guy have his 'glory'. From a strategic vantage point, this is one more case of the Administration digging itself yet another hole -- and opening itself up to one more charge of corruption in the upcoming election. So those of us who are disgusted with the Republican Party (and no, I'm not a Democrat either) should be quite happy. As the old saying goes, 'When your enemy is digging himself into a hole, lend him your shovel!'

While our current government is undoubtedly the sleaziest and most corrupt administration in a lifetime, ambassadorships have long been about political remuneration for both parties. This unabashed effort by Bush to reward Fox for his fundraising prowess should be viewed as an opportunity for the Senate to take a hard look at the appointment process and make permanent modifications to ensure the United States is represented in these vital positions by the most qualified personnel. For too long we have had ambassadors who know nothing of the culture or country to which they are appointed, and who view their tenure as an opportunity to party down at taxpayers expense. They rarely speak the language and their ability to serve as diplomats or even function and communicate at the most fundamental level is generally not a consideration.

John Bolton is of course the most egregious example of placing an unqualified candidate in an important diplomatic position, but he is just the tip of the iceberg. When our government makes preposterous appointments such as Bolton, other nations get the message loud and clear that the United States does not value international relations. Let's hope the next potus makes ambassadorial appointments based on merit and ability and not raw cronyism. In the meantime, how about the Senate making some effort to revise the process?

I can't even find where this is a story at the WaPo. These appointments and the war spending rhetoric from Bush are not the act of a reasonable leader who knows how to work with the opposition to get something done. All Bush and Cheney know how to do is give people the finger, sometimes literally. I*ve been hearing a lot about bad karma. Their comeuppance is long overdue.

The Unarmored Humvee Amputees invite Sam Fox to become Ambassador to Iraqistan and drive around in one of AWOL-George Junior's unarmored Humvees to show everyone how much the Iraqis appreciate the Freedom Fries and cheap gasoline America is giving them.

What, pray tell, is so urgent that Sam Fox is absolutely essential for that post, and that President Bush HAD to use a recess appointment to put him there.

Secretary of Defense, I can see it. EU Ambassador, Maybe.

Ambassador to Iraq, OK.

But Belgium?!?

As far as Mr. Fox's "qualifications," you mean to tell me that Bush couldn't find some OTHER wealthy GOP donor with international experience to appoint to that job?

Hell, his Brother's not doing anything important right now, how about Jeb?

This raises a serious question about whether Fox was promised an Ambassadorship by somebody in the administration if he gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat liars.

I think the Senate should investigate that matter more fully. I believe laws may have been broken. This just smells. And if we had a Justice Department taht was independant, and cared about enforcing the nation's laws rather than advancing George Bush and Karl Rove's political goals, we'd probably have a criminal investigation.

Bush and Co. continues to operate like this, like a sneaky little kid getting away with something, and then wonders why the Democrats and the majority of the American people won't give him the benefit of the doubt on his "surge". This imperial administration is not to be trusted.
By the way, why isn't there a bigger story about this in the Washington Post?

We better wake up and smell the coffee too many people has let this man feel like he is King George - All I ask is keep that black box away from him. We are watching a man who seams are coming a loose at the thread. He needs to be brought up on impeachment charges. He is one sick Pup. GWB41 could you had at least committed the poor sap. Why do we the people of this country have to put up with a imcompetent spoiled little boy

A blatant example of Bush*s lip service to the idea of bipartisanship. This is as bad or even worse than recess appointing John Bolton to the U.N. Also, Bush buried this appointment at the end of a White House personnel release, and it looks like WaPo followed suit and buried it as well. Why?

President Bush has been able to keep the Congressional Lions at bay with his whip (fight against terror) and chair (majority in Congress) for many years. The whip does not seem to intimidate the lions anymore and the chair fell apart.

Why is everyone so surprised that the lions who have not been fed for a while are attacking after smelling blood?

The President keeps poking them with a stick just to make sure they stay angry and focused.

How DARE you, ahem, people question the authority of the Dear Leader! The privileges of the Presidency, nay the entire class of 'haves' are not to be questioned by 'people' who apparently are forced by their low birth and status to read their own newspapers rather than having their man do it and regurgitate the contents predigested! Filthy little congressmen and ...shudder... citizens should know their place and offer grateful aquiesence to the desires of the Administration. President Bush is a Yale man, after all!

The recess appointment clause was neither intended nor can it be read to allow this appointment. But I am not going to make the brief here because I already posted widely in response to the last illegal recess appt: John Bolton. To some extent the Dems dug their own grave here when they failed to make a sufficient stink about Bolton.

I expect the Foreign Relations Committee to haul Mr. Fox in for a hearing. A certain junior senator from Massachusetts is going to look like a jackass if they don't.

Don't they teach ethics at these fancy prep-schools and Yale? Bush wasn't much of a student though was he? And even if he was taught ethics during his fancy education I'm sure Barbara instilled in him from a young age "You never have to apologize, you're a Bush".
For all his regular-guy-good-ol'-boy posturing, the one thing Bush doesn't have that most of the rest of us do is SHAME!

Bush, the petulant little child that he is! I am sure he believes that this approach of getting his way will make hime more powerful and the democrats will roll over to make him happy. It would be laughable if he wasn't president. Can't wait for 2009!

The Democrats haven't the guts to fight back. They should announce that until these three recess appointments are rescinded the Senate will confirm no Bush appointments for anything. And to avoid more recess appointments they can keep the Congress in session until the end of the Bush administration.

So, The president can't get his man appointed through a congress that is clearly blocking the appointment based on revenge. Where is the outrage for Mr. Fox's violated civil liberties? Why is there no concern that he was blocked purely b/c he spoke out aginst the Democrat's man in 04. Besides, don't these eleceted officials(of both parties)have enough days off. If they wanted to stop this from happening, GO TO WORK.
Two weeks for easter!

Democrats may not like it, but under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President has every legal right to make appointments during a recess of the senate.

Saying that Kerry's fellow veterans "smeared" Kerry is, in and of itself a smear.

To this very day, John Kerry has never released his military record to the public. Doubt me? Try to find it. You do, after all, call this blog "The Sleuth."

As a matter of pure and undisputed fact, we know John Kerry did lie about at least some of his war record, as 254 veterans who served with him attest.

Remember this story in particular, told by Kerry multiple times?

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

"Seared?" "Baked" is more like it.

John Kerry was based at Ha Tien, a base at the mouth of the Giang Thanh River (also known as "Bernique's Creek" by those who served there). At no point does the Giang Thanh River EVER go into Cambodia. This is a geographical fact. Kerry's own journal corroborates this fact in Douglas Brinkley's book, Tour of Duty.

From the book, in Kerry's own words.

"The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side."

The single story Jogn Kerry told most about his Vietnam service, one he shared on the floor of Congress, was an abject lie, and a geographical impossibility. Unless John Kerry attached a rope to his 23-ton Swiftboat and dragged it overland, he simply never went to Cambodia.

Of course, you could claim that the Giang Thanh River was smearing Kerry as well.

Hey, Tom B. and Hesiod, here is some information for you about Belgium and its capital, Brussels. NATO headquarters are located in Brussels; the European Economic Community seat is in Brussels; a very large number of multinational companies have their European headquarters in Belgium; Brussels hosts the SWIFT bank consortium that Bush pressured to illegaly get banking information. The largest diamond trading center in the world is in Antwerp. Belgium is a plum post. Fox can do a lot of damage in favor of Bush there.

I will never ever understand how anyone could be so ignorant to support George Bush. How bad must you hate liberals to think he's doing a good job? To those who compare his mis-deeds to other presidents I ask "Does that make it right"?

This guy contributed to the swift boaters and then lied before the committee by saying that he didn't know what he was giving the money for. Peeellllzzz, how many Bush liars can this country tolerate. I hope the Democrats find a way to sink this outrageous appointment.

Republicans and this President never seem to amaze me with what they can stoop to. They always put personal interest ahead of what's good for the country.....Bush is a master at this....he is as close to a dictator as we have ever had....the man is obsessed by having only his way and putting weak people around him to say " yes Mr. President ". Very sad!!

Hey Brooks:
I can see the headlines in 3379 A.D. R's say Bill Clinton still causing problems for the country. Wow! What a powerful man!////Start working on another whipping boy for 3340 A.D. to justify Republican stupidity.

Fox also chairs the national Republican Jewish Coalition. He gave at least $250,000 or more to the GOP in the 2000 election cycle and through his company Harbour Group, has developed close ties with the Chinese government. Fox was among 22 wealthy business leaders whom President Bush invited to lunch in 2001 to discuss his tax cut for the rich. His company has received $3.3 million in federal contracts in fiscal 2002. So he is not just a republican who donated $50,000 to swiftboaters to help smear John Kerry as this silly reporter states.

*The president made this decision based on Mr. Fox's impressive leadership credentials."* -- Like what? - Raising money to give to political hatchetmen? -- This is just another example of this president*s hallmark of attempting to rule by fiat. -- No bi-partisanship. No respect for the procedures of check and balance. -- Apparently it is also a snub at one of the *chocolate-making countries* by sending them a guy who could not pass muster in the Congress. Hubris rules, eh George?

I had just about given up on Bush's ability to fight back against those putting their partisan politics above the good of the country. Non-partisanship has only been a one-way street for the Left. Murtha's "slow bleed", the made-up Gonzales non-scandal "scandal", Pelosi's blunders in the Middle-East, the non-reporting of the Surge progress and the congressional blockages of qualified appointments for petty reasons seemed to be met only with "turning the other cheek". Good move on the recess appointments to get around this do-nothing, obstructionist Congress, Mr. President!

Impeach Cheney first -- we don't want that evil death merchant and disseminator of falsehoods as our president. The impeach King George. Please! Congress! -- Are you listening? Is this a democratic republic?

And by the way, ask Mr. Georgraphy (comments above) to validate his Swift Boat lies before changing the subject -- we're talking about a sleazy, tricky, devious appointment that subverts the will of our elected lawmakers, not an election that will remain (like the previous one) forever scarred by an asterick in the record books. The nerve -- once a swift-boater, always a swift-boater.

Stay focused, people! Dont' let these serpents distract you from the business at hand.

Bob Owens - I suppose that your point is that your *facts* overshadow the the fact the John Kerry served on Swift boats on the rivers of Viet Nam, faced combat on numerous occasions and received three purple hearts in the course fo that service. Is that it? -- You apparently like to showcase the fact that you*re about as credible as the Swifites. Which is to say *NOT*!

Dr Reeves,
I am neither a democrat, nor republican. I was just pointing out that Bill did the same thing. Just trying to relay that the posterboy for the democratic party did the same thing. Since many posters believe only Bush would have the audacity to practice such unscrupulous politics.

Both parties exhibit stupidity. The only tangible difference are their logos. Are all of you guys so easily lumped into one of the two parties?

To all the idiots yelling for impeachment, maybe you better go back and study the rules of presidential succession, because I think you are all missing one very important detail -- what the direct result of the impeachment of George Bush would be: President Dick Cheney. Is that really what you want?

DOESN'T LOOK LIKE KING KERRY WILL GET HIS WAY DOES IT. SOUNDS LIKE I HEAR DEMOCRATS CRYING. JUST WAIT TILL NOVEMBER OF 08' AND YOU LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE EVEN MORE TO CRY ABOUT WHEN A REPUBLICAN GOES BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE. YOU KNOW WHAT THE GOOD NEWS IS? WITH THE WAY THE DEMS. HAVE BEEN ACTING I IMAGINE AN EVEN MORE CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT THAN BUSH WILL BE YOUR NEW COMMANDER. GO CRY ON THAT. I AM LAUGHING.

Voice of Reason - Well, some of us are actually calling for the Impeachment of Cheney first. - If you follow that along to the next step, then you could have . . . . say it with me now: *President Pelosi.* [:-O

Well, Bob, and other assorted Bushies - You'll all remember the imperial presidency of Bush when some really imperial Democratic President does something like confiscate all handguns. The problem with supporting "leaders" that act like tin horn gods is that subsequent "leaders" will copy them and do pretty much what they ;like. Be Afraid. Be very afraid.

George Bush is pond scum. He won't be content until the Constitution has been left on the scrapheap and the (permanently Republican, if he and Rove get their way) presidency is a dictatorship. This is now beyond denial: He is creating a fascist banana republic where a democracy used to be.

In describing the G.A.O. as the "Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress" you imply that it's a politically biased group, which I don't think is the case, unlike, of course, describing the Supreme Court as "a bunch of hacks securely in the pocket of the Republican party shadow government," which certainly has a ring of truth to it. Just kidding.
Seriously, by calling the G.A.O. "an arm of..." you encourage the baying morons who will now start howling about it as a lefty street gang.
Stupidity spreads through television news, and we'll be hearing the Post's name as an enabler.

pardon me...but doesn't belgium have a say here???...just suppose that government refuses to accept fox...living outside the usa i am totally aware of how weak gwb is in the international arena...challenge the appointment belgium!!!

Posted by: MARK | April 5, 2007 11:56 AM
`
Odin966 is right. It's rude to use all capital letters in a post. It's like having an annoying drunk yelling in your ear.
The obnoxious right wing trolls on this website learned their etiquette from Bush, they don't obey the rules of engagement.

GAO is an arm of Congress, however, it's Director is a presidential appointee and was appointed by Bush. It's staff is almost entirely civil service. It may be an arm of Congress, but it has an impartiality that is quite different from say, the opinion of Atty Gen Gonzales. Someone who supposedly covers government should be aware of this rather than simply repeating GOP talking points.

Nice choice of words - SMEARED (it implies lack of evidence and untruth) - how was Kerry smeared, when the Swift boat vets are recounting THEIR versions of events? Is Kerry's version of events credible - try his Christmas sojourn in Cambodia for truth, or his own comments in his book that contradict his later comments when he ran. Are all the people who signed onto the swiftboat vets - from the top brass down - who were Kerry's peers and senior officers and in a position to judge his behavior as a commander of troops - less credible from the self-aggrandizing, medal-throwing, volunteered-since-he-was-going-to-be-drafted anyway, spit-on-the-troops-that-rape, havent-done-anything-in-his-senate-career Boston Brahmin who is more comfortable on the slopes of Davos ripping US policy than having the balls to say it here KERRY? Now THAT is a personal attack based on what the imperious Kerry has said and done in his life, and I dare anyone to convincingly refute those points. (I left out his marrying rich women and living off of them, but that would be an ad hominem attack).

Your choice of terms shows your bias, and detracts from the story you try to objectively write.

Well, luckily, the GOP won't always be in power!! And karma truly is the mother of all (starts with a "b" and rhymes with "witches"!!) And anyone who supports such a move now can only rightfully support it when the shoe is on the other foot......

You must be kidding. The Democrats are upset because an ambassadorship is filled without spending money -- oh, that's it, the Demos believe if you can's spend taxpayers' money, then it isn't right?

Posted by: Jerry Green | April 4, 2007 11:24 PM

Are you daft? The article clearly said that even if he's not paid, the gov't still has to pay for his room and board, so to speak. And as for everyone who says "Clinton did it" as some sort of excuse for this behavior, what about all the times Bush said he was going to get past 'partisan politics' and bring people together? What about how he and Cheney said that when they took over six years ago that there were now 'adults' in charge?? What about ETHICS and HONESTY and TRUST??? Dammit, doesn't that count for anything anymore? Shame on all of you fools who can't get past your blind hatred of other viewpoints that you can't see that the ship is sinking.

It's OK for Democrats to do this but not OK for Republicans? I see; double standards abound.

Posted by: David | April 5, 2007 12:52 PM
`
David, there is an important difference in the Hormel case. The Republican Senate committee chairman refused to put the nomination up for a vote because Hormel had enough support. So Clinton by-passed the committee during the recess and satisfied the will of the majority.
The Senate had scheduled a vote on the Fox appointment, and Bush withdrew the nomination an hour before, because he didn't have enough support. He then thwarted the will of the majority by appointing Fox anyway.
Do you see the distinction? Hello! Hello! David are you still there?

"
"It's comments like this that makes the Republican party look like a bunch of spoiled brats and cynical 'have mores', who will go to any length to spite their opponents. Like Fox and his swift-boaters, they constantly find bitter enjoyment in ridiculing and taunting their adversaries by any possible means, fair or foul. "

Thsi is one of the stupidest comments by the liberals in a while and that says alot. Considering the abuse towards Bush that is unprecedented by the liberals, to make this statement shows the utter depravity and bankruptcy of the left wingers.

"The single story Jogn Kerry told most about his Vietnam service, one he shared on the floor of Congress, was an abject lie, and a geographical impossibility. Unless John Kerry attached a rope to his 23-ton Swiftboat and dragged it overland, he simply never went to Cambodia.

Of course, you could claim that the Giang Thanh River was smearing Kerry as well.

Bob Owens"

It seems when I look it up on Google Earth the Giang Thanh River does go into Cambodia just about nine miles upriver from Ha Tien. Over most of those nine miles it's less than a thousand yards from the border. At about 12 and a half miles it crosses into Cambodia permanently.

If this is the kind of "facts" Bob Owens gleaned from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, maybe Mr Fox's money was well spent.

Thsi is one of the stupidest comments by the liberals in a while and that says alot. Considering the abuse towards Bush that is unprecedented by the liberals, to make this statement shows the utter depravity and bankruptcy of the left wingers.

If by calling me a "neocon" you think you have insulted me, you are wrong. I wear it with pride as a free man. The democrats and their leftist fellow travelers, satisfied with the freedoms they enjoy, feel no duty to help OTHERS live in freedom. Instead their belief is to cozy up to any murderer on the planet in the name of stability. As the leaders of the free world, we have a duty to make sure that the Iran's, North Koreas and other scum feel uneasy with the murder and torture of women, children and other helpless victims.

"David, there is an important difference in the Hormel case. The Republican Senate committee chairman refused to put the nomination up for a vote because Hormel had enough support. So Clinton by-passed the committee during the recess and satisfied the will of the majority."

False, false, false, false, he was never going to get approved by the congress at that time.

When people challenge your grammar or mention typos, it's code for "I surrender, I can't think of anything to rebut you with" as this post demonstrates.

Posted by: patrick | April 5, 2007 02:07 PM
`
I won't ever retreat or surrender. The Washington Post blogs are too important a battlefield to concede to the trolls.
You do have a point about mentioning other people's typos, misspellings and grammatical errors. I make too many of them myself. Mostly I just mock right wingers for their their lack of logic, their emotional immaturity, their banal snideness, their hypocracy, their lies, and their ignorance in general.

False, false, false, false, he was never going to get approved by the congress at that time.
Posted by: David | April 5, 2007 02:38 PM
`
`
David, This excerpt is from the very article you linked to. The full Senate was never allowed to vote.
`
`

Hormel's nomination had languished in the Senate for nearly two years, held up by a small handful of senators who objected to his support for gay causes.

Clinton sidestepped the Senate and gave Hormel a ``recess appointment'' by taking advantage of a constitutional provision that allows presidents to install nominees without Senate confirmation when Congress is not in session. Hormel can remain in the post until the current Congress adjourns, probably early in the fall of 2000.

``This came down to a couple of senators who thought that he shouldn't be ambassador to Luxembourg because he's gay,'' said White House press secretary Joe Lockhart. ``And the president thinks that's wrong and discriminatory, and that's why he moved ahead.''

False, false, false, false, he was never going to get approved by the congress at that time.
Posted by: David | April 5, 2007 02:38 PM
`
`
Here's some more from the same article. I wonder if Inhofe is as adamant about the Senate's right to advise and consent.
`
`

Hormel's nomination was easily approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 1997 but was held up by three Republican senators -- James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Bob Smith of New Hampshire and Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas -- who warned that he would push a gay agenda and said he is unfit to represent the country.

Inhofe said the appointment shows Clinton's ``utter contempt of the Senate and its role in the confirmation process,'' and some senators said they would thwart Clinton's future nominees because of what they consider his disregard for the Senate's role to ``advise and consent.''

Maybe you should read the record and then get out your geography book before you make pronouncements on public message boards.

On Christmas Eve 1968 Kerry was based at Cat Lao, not Ha Tien. He was patrolling up the Co Chien (not the Giang Thanh) river out of Sa Dec that day going to the Cambodian border; he was ambushed at the time. This is confirmed by his crewmembers and also by George Elliot's fitness report. Oh, and the Co Chien and its offshoots do cross the Cambodian border.

The following February he was based at An Thoi, not Ha Tien. It was the SEALS who were based across the river at Ha Tien. There are official after action reports showing his boat inserting SEALS along the Giang Thanh on the Cambodian border at that time. And as to being able to cross the border, I suggest you get a better map, because there are canals leading off the Giang Thanh that most definitely DO cross the border.

Really, do a little research before making a public fool out of yourself.

John Kerry's statement should have said when they can't win the game, they just cheat....rather than change the rules. THEY CHEAT!!!!! They lie. They didn't change the rules...they violated the rules and dared the Democrats to impeach. Well, it is time for impeachment. Justice demands it.
Another point, if the Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, does it by inference, give the power to declare peace to the same Congress? Congress should declare peace and cut off funds from an outdated war. No war, no funds! Declare Peace and then impeach the corrupt fools.

Yes, Bob Owens, let's do "try to get a few basic facts out in the open, shall we?"

I see that a few others have pointed out the problems you have with history and geography.

Next, Sam Fox was quite willing to characterize the SBVT as a "smear" campaign. According to you he was smearing Kerry's fellow veterans. Well, he doesn't seem to mind a good smear, that's for sure.

Oh, are you looking for Kerry's military records? Try Findlaw. Or about a half dozen other places on the Internet. You can also access just about everything except his fitness reports (not in dispute) and his medical records (also not in dispute) by going to the military archives or submitting a FOIA request...they are public records, you know.

And finally, those "254 veterans who served with him" cam't really attest to anything but SBVT talking points, really. You see, almost none of them actually served with Kerry. You could look it up.

Your mention of "the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress" is worded to mislead the readers that the GAO is controlled by the Democratic Party when in fact the GAO is non-partisan other than the director who was appointed by President Bush himself. Whether this unfortunate choice of words was deliberate or accidental, it leaves most readers with a mistaken understanding of the situation and as a journalist you should reword it or add an update to the end of the column. Otherwise your journalistic integrity and objectivity will be in serious question.

"David, there is an important difference in the Hormel case. The Republican Senate committee chairman refused to put the nomination up for a vote because Hormel had enough support. So Clinton by-passed the committee during the recess and satisfied the will of the majority."

False, false, false, false, he was never going to get approved by the congress at that time.

Posted by: David | April 5, 2007 02:38 PM

Go use "The Google" David. Hormel had enough support. James Inhofe, who is a gay-hater, refused to put the nomination up for a vote for the sole reason that Hormel was gay.

.... won't ever retreat or surrender. The Washington Post blogs are too important a battlefield to concede to the trolls.
You do have a point about mentioning other people's typos, misspellings and grammatical errors. I make too many of them myself. Mostly I just mock right wingers for their their lack of logic, their emotional immaturity, their banal snideness, their hypocracy, their lies, and their ignorance in general.....

I believe someone was covering their mirror as they were writing this - hello pot, meet kettle. The irony of this person not seeing the mote in his own eye is lost on him. Another victim of BDS speaking.

I think that bipartisanship is really a stupid term. If you are on the right or the left you want that official to fight for what you elected them for, NOT to cave on important principles in the name of bipartisanship.

Curious: does Fox speak either Dutch or French, the official languages of Belgium?

Posted by: Jim S | April 5, 2007 02:06 PM

Actually, the official language of Belgium is Flemmish, a close cousin of French but not the same (much like Mexican Spanish is related to but very distinct from Spanish Spanish these days).
As for whether or not it was legal for Dumbya to make the appointment (I'd say not in general, but only because he isn't legally President, in spite of the votes of 5 Supreme Court justices illegally overruling the Constitution in 2000 and the mysterious disappearance of over 300,000 provisonal ballots in Ohio in 2004), the real outrage here is that he first said he wouldn't continue to press the nomination, then as soon as everyone's back was turned (figuratively) he did the recess appointment as a kind of "Fooled you!" That is dishonesty and hypocrisy, rolled into one.
I also believe that Dumbya should be impeached, but it must be a simultaneous impeachment with Cheney standing trial at the exact same time, since they are both guilty of the same crimes and there is no reason to run through the exact same evidence twice.
And there are enough postings elsewhere on the net of credible templates for articles of impeachment that is will take anyone with an ounce of integrity less than five minutes to find all of them. It might take more than an ounce to understand that they tell the truth, however.

Not quite so. The tactic has been used by other presidents, and it's usually legal, but there are circumstances - perhaps like this one - when it is not. But what is unquestionable - and a little research would have shown you this, Ms Akers - is that BUSH is very nearly the only president ever to use it for the REASON you cite in the above quote.

Almost every other recess appointment in American history has been done not because a nominee probably wouldn't pass Senate confirmation, but because the Senate was in a MUCH longer recess, and the appointment needed to be filled sooner than that. Please, don't give Bush the benefit of being allowed to look like he's doing something a lot of other presidents have done. He's not.

And by the way, you neglect to point out what is obvious to almost any reasonbly intelligent observer, which is that Bush did a bait-and-switch on this nomination, first withdrawing it only an hour or so before Fox would have gone before the full Senate, and also that Bush showed the maturity and leadership of your average 3rd-grade bully in the way he handled this.

I sincerely hope the Senate can find a way to make this illegal, but whether they do or not, it is unquestionably immature, sneaky, and childish, and was done for the express purpose of picking a fight.

I believe someone was covering their mirror as they were writing this - hello pot, meet kettle. The irony of this person not seeing the mote in his own eye is lost on him. Another victim of BDS speaking.

Posted by: | April 5, 2007 04:02 PM
`
Nonsense! I'm much too vain to cover my mirror. I wished this commenter had used a name. I wanted to thank him or her for being the first troll to even admit the kettle is black. BTW Bush Derangement Syndrome is when rightwingers blindly follow Der Fuhrer or offer up a knee jerk defense for his most egregious sins.

Actually, those are incomplete records that Kerry falsely represented as "complete records" innumerable times during the campaign. Thus far we know of at least 2 items that were withheld...the ducumentation that referenced Kerry's grades and Page 1 of the Streuli fitness report on Kerry which allegedly re-appeared (to restricted view) after the election.

Oh, by the way, to the commenter who declared Kerry's fitness reports "not in dispute", that is decidedly not the case. In fact, several analysts have graded them mediocre or average, perhaps even career ending.

WELL Said, mobiusein, Bush is like a child, if I can not play the way I want to, then I will take my ball home and not let any one play. Man he needs to grow up. Better yet he needs to gotten out of office.

WOW !! I wonder if Bush or Laura or maybe daddy Bush ever reads any of this. they should. It may tell them that its time to go home to texas. Laura, Daddy Bush, tell your husband and son that its time to quit, the American people does not want him any more. REALLY, HE NEEDS TO BE IMPREACHED !!!

Actually, those are incomplete records that Kerry falsely represented as "complete records" innumerable times during the campaign. Thus far we know of at least 2 items that were withheld...the ducumentation that referenced Kerry's grades and Page 1 of the Streuli fitness report on Kerry which allegedly re-appeared (to restricted view) after the election.

Oh, by the way, to the commenter who declared Kerry's fitness reports "not in dispute", that is decidedly not the case. In fact, several analysts have graded them mediocre or average, perhaps even career ending.

Posted by: | April 5, 2007 07:40 PM "

Probably because college grades are not considered part of a military service record. That's assuming they were even in the documents that Kerry received from the Navy in the first place. And the first page of the Streuli report recommended him for accelerated promotion - yeah, he probably really wanted to hide that one. Duh.

Oh, and by the way, you can say that Kerry's fitness reports are really coded messages from Mars, but the fact is that not even the Smear Vets dispute that they are his actual fitness reports and the actual representation of how his commanders rated him.

I know this involves more original thinking on your part than the usual Smear Vet talking points, but sound out the words as you go.

Above is the story from ABC who went back to the Vietnam
village in question and interviewed the villagers who remember very well what happened, and corroborate Kerry's account.

Posted by: raisedbywolves | April 6, 2007 12:07 AM "

Every single person who was there corroborates Kerry's account. Including the only member of Smear Vets who was there that day, Larry Clayton Lee. He thinks Kerry earned his medal.

Put it another way, there isn't a single person who was there that day who disagrees with anything Kerry did that day, the way he's described it, or what appears in the official records. Not a single one.

Any time some bozo wants to smear Kerry about medals, just tell them that EVERY vet*s medals are in question if Kerry*s are. EVERY SINGLE VET HAS TO ANSWER FOR HOW HE GOT HIS MEDALS. No exceptions. If Kerry*s medals are bogus, then every medal is questionable.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for John Kerry whatsover when his campaign nodded and winked at the Democrats 527's that spent millions upon millions of dollars in 'swift-boat' type ads against Republicans in 04.

Let's face reality here. This is nothing more than a symptom of how wildly dysfunctional our political system has become. This why I believe a lot of people have tuned out politics all together. It stinks. And they're right, not only does it stink, it's corrosive, and until we get some adults into the conversation and send the preening, screeching four year olds masquerading as pundits, political action commitees, and activists to their rooms, nothing's going to change and we will continue to be extremely polarized.

Ignorance is ignorance. Intolerance is intolerance. Bigotry is Bigotry. Unfortunately, it's just as alive in the Democratic party as it is in the Republicans. The sad thing is that there are rational voices on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, that drowned out by the extremists who suck up the air time on your political pundit shows. No wonder why we can't seem to have a civilized conversation about political beliefs anymore.

"Sorry, I have no sympathy for John Kerry whatsover when his campaign nodded and winked at the Democrats 527's that spent millions upon millions of dollars in 'swift-boat' type ads against Republicans in 04.

Posted by: Swamp Pirate | April 6, 2007 11:34 AM "

Unlike GWB, Kerry publicly called on one of those 527s to take down an offensive ad.

Just wanted to raise my mug to SwampPirate, we have all lost site of rational thought, choosing instead to accuse and polarize. Although I have thought for several years that Iraq needs to divide its inhabitants along sectarian lines, I think the US has now become so polarized that we need to consider the same thing. I must request to the Divider (not to be confused with the Decider), that central Texas NOT be part of the Bush realm simply because of his Crawford retreat, the Bushians are really Mainers and we Texans don't want the association. The next election is bound to be a douzie, and will underline the need for separate geography for our factions.

Bush seems to have alot of Foxes in his den.Texas cronies takes over Washington & we in this country know the effects of dealing with Texas.The DETRACTORS.When JFK ran for office we wondered about his religion governing our country.What should we think now with Bush?A big Corporate man,representing Corporate America,pushing slave labor,illegal immigration,tax breaks for the very rich that don't even need it.He says he cut our taxes but the states raised them.Gutting out the middle class,making America less than what it is.The infrstucture,our schools,roads, small mom & pops gone.Family first.Our families are gone.Broken up.State hopping for jobs that Americans don't want nor can they find. The implosion of 9/11 WTC & no Legitimate investigation,Iraq war,pipeline in Afghanistan,oil,Cheney & his Energy Task Force,Haliburton,no bid contracts,Dubui now home of Haliburton,selling of our ports.Stacking the deck in our legal system in firings of USAs.Sounds like the game Monopoly.Pushing for the New World Order.Do you think in some small way this would seem like a conflict of interests?His agenda is big business & profits 1st,the party 2nd.To hell with America & its small thinking people.Can anyone out there tell me of one thing he has done in 6 years that has been good for America & the people?That was not lies,cover ups,indictments,investigations,resignations,firings.Where has Laura been lately?

Bush seems to have alot of Foxes in his den.Texas cronies takes over Washington & we in this country know the effects of dealing with Texas.The DETRACTORS.When JFK ran for office we wondered about his religion governing our country.What should we think now with Bush?A big Corporate man,representing Corporate America,pushing slave labor,illegal immigration,tax breaks for the very rich that don't even need it.He says he cut our taxes but the states raised them.Gutting out the middle class,making America less than what it is.The infrstucture,our schools,roads, small mom & pops gone.Family first.Our families are gone.Broken up.State hopping for jobs that Americans don't want nor can they find. The implosion of 9/11 WTC & no Legitimate investigation,Iraq war,pipeline in Afghanistan,oil,Cheney & his Energy Task Force,Haliburton,no bid contracts,Dubui now home of Haliburton,selling of our ports.Stacking the deck in our legal system in firings of USAs.Sounds like the game Monopoly.Pushing for the New World Order.Do you think in some small way this would seem like a conflict of interests?His agenda is big business & profits 1st,the party 2nd.To hell with America & its small thinking people.Can anyone out there tell me of one thing he has done in 6 years that has been good for America & the people?That was not lies,cover ups,indictments,investigations,resignations,firings.Where has Laura been lately?

It has been a lonely quest. But I still seek the truth, the answer. It's been over 6 years now and still no one has ever answered my question.

Remember Melvin Jay Mel Reynolds, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from the state of Illinois from 1993 to 1995? In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994 those forgiving Democratic voters. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995. Reynolds, who had a wife and a child at the time of the incident, was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted his sentence.

Now my question has been for 6 years, Why would Bill Clinton commute the sentence of someone convicted of sexual assault of a 16-year-old and solicitation of child pornography?

Stop the lunacy! James Hormel was the victim of an ugly, homophobic republican witch hunt. He was not a member of NAMBLA. He in fact publicly denounced NAMBLA. The republicans have opposed anything that seems to support gay rights. Giving someone a position they deserve is not supporting gay rights. It's the right thing to do. You conservatives love to spew on and on about affirmative action benefitting people who lack "merit." When people do have merit, you do not hesitate to exclude them based on bigotry -- which, I understand, is why affirmative action is justifiable. By the way, Jesse Helms -- another redstate looney -- condemned Clinton's nomination of Roberta Achtenber, calling her a "damn lesbian" and then saying he did not mean any harm. Was she in NAMBLA as well? Smells wood burning...runs.

Now - I initally came on here to engage in intelligent conversation, but apparently there are some pea-brained individuals around. Nonetheless, my question was: how does Bush's recess appointment compare with Clintons appointment of Bill Lan Lee -- whom republicans held up because he was an Asian civil rights attorney?

Bush does not know anything about constitutional law. Otherwise, he would not have tried to reintroduce the line-item veto - which the Supreme Court had invalidated during the Clinton administration. Furthermore, the Framers could not have intended that presidents cynically evade the confirmation process -- which they clearly intended to take place, hence it being explicitly placed in the constitution (I thought conservatives were textualists). Recess appointments seem justifiable if the Senate is unable to convene. The Senate was in the throws of considering this candidate; Bush dropped the nomination, and then appointment him. Sounds like Bush is evading a constitutional mandate. But we expect that from his administration at this point.

Bush dropped the nomination, and then appointment him. Sounds like Bush is evading a constitutional mandate. But we expect that from his administration at this point.
Posted by: Darren | April 8, 2007 06:34 AM `
Darren, Mary Ann, or anyone; When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes on a nomination, does that determine whether or not the full Senate gets to vote, or is it simply a recommendation? I wish I knew the answer before I asserted that the Hormel appointment was significantly different.

Gee, Mary Ann, this OUTRAGE sure sounds phony to me.
Every President makes recess appointments when he cannot get Senate approval for someone. In the case of ambassadors, it has been a 220 year old practice to appoint a large percentage of ambassadors from the list of intewrested large donors and major party supporters, not particularly related to their demonstrated diplomatic skills. The basis of this "outrage" is partucularly stupid and trasparent, since it is based on technicalities of apparently conflicting law and regulations. An example of a particularly bad and outrageous appointment by Pres. Clinton was the multi millionaire gay man as Ambassador to Luxembourg, a tiny but particularly Rom. Catholic country, an affront to them. There are many other such controversial and pathetic appointments by Presidents of both parties, not restricted to ambassorships either. The criticism stinks to high heaven in hypocrisy. Coomentators like yourself would have greater credibility if you would be more objective and truthful in pointing out the truth about reality in our politics, instead of promoting partisan goals.

My question is: if Bush withdrew Fox from consideration to stop the vote and appoint during recess, isn't that lying to Congress?

Why go after the guy's salary or non-salary when Bush may have committed perjury in the withdrawal letter itself? I imagine it depends on the wording, but if Bush left the clear impression that Fox was done and going home, that's potential perjury. If he fell short of that assertion, Congress would have been within its rights to keep voting anyway, which they should have done IMO.

Surely any ambassador should be acceptable to the country to which he/she is being appointed. Perhaps one who is not acceptable to the U.S. Senate will not be acceptable to Belgium. Maybe someone should ask Belgium, diplomatically of course.

The Fox appointment is confirmation that Bush is One: Stupid. Why go out of his way to antagonize the Democrats who now control both houses of congress? Two: A bully. He did it because he could muscle it thru. Three: Very lame duck. He is uncaring about the political consequences of his action.

It certainly is incredible that the President withdraws the nomination one hour prior to the vote knowing it didn't have the support of the American people and then appoint him days late during the Easter recess. That speaks volumes about the man and his strange sense of duty. Barbera, you must be proud of the blue blood coursing through his veins. He did it in the most cowardly of ways but I guess considering his cowardly way of refusing to serve his country in combat during the Viet Nam war equally comes as no surprise.